The reality is that the 2nd amendment is here to stay, but with freedom comes responsibility. As a nation, the stats show we could be more responsible with our weapons. Mostly what we need is to raise our level of civilization. When we take care of our problems with drugs, poverty, alcohol, and learn to deal with basic human emotions like jealousy, humiliation, fear, and the obsession with "face" and "respect of my macho", we will make greater strides in being more civilized. Then we'll see the number of gun deaths, domestic beatings and stabbings, theft, and overall murders dramatically reduced. Since guns are here to stay, we need to find ways to identify and educate the irresponsible owners in order to reduce the number of accidental deaths. Ultimately, we need a shift in our collective consciousness towards a more enlightened state, so that the true underlying problems behind these deaths are at best a thing of the past, and at worst, a rarity.

I do not understand why we don't permanently yank licenses of drunk drivers with a couple years in the slammer if they are caught behind the wheel again. I am not really pro-drug but you can let out some people busted for small quantities of pot to create room to enact this change; the trade-off seems obvious to me. I knew a couple good people killed by drunk drivers who had multiple convictions yet were still on the road.

One of the differences is that people don't blame cars for drunk driving, probably because the vast majority of people in this country use cars daily so it is a relied-upon tool to them. Guns, the percentage of people who view them this way is much different. If you asked people in a place like NYC or Boston where car ownership is far, far lower their opinions on restricting the use of cars, I suspect you would get a very different perspective.

If you plotted gun ownership (both legal and illegal) in the US you would get a relatively even distribution. If you overlayed a plot of gun violence on that map, you could get a very uneven distribution focused very heavily on inner cities and other impoverished urban areas. In other words it is a socioeconomic problem. Without a wholesale ban on firearms and door-to-door search and collection of existing ones (not going to happen), thinking you are going to get guns out of problem areas with any realistic legislative manuever is a pipedream. And good luck fixing those socioeconomic problems, as gun violence is only one of the multitude of issues created by them.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Again, the idea of "Gun control" is Utopian. It is an easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to implement.

People can talk about gun control measures all you want, but guns, even if banned, would still be as prevalent as illegal drugs. Only difference would be that the arms were produced by Russia, China, and other countries.

Trying to "Control" guns or ban them would be about as effective as trying to eliminate all the illegal drugs in the world (imppossible) or kill all the cockroaches in the world. (impossible).

---People get reactionary and say "something should be done about that!" But I agree with the poster above who talked about pandoras box being opened, all you can really do for the most part is mourn and move on. These things will continue to happen, and there is no way to stop it. Measures to control guns only end up keeping law-abiders from being to purchase them.

I dont own a gun, nor do I have the desire. But I have the choice. If you stop law-abiding people from having guns--do you think the criminals will play along? It makes the law abiding citizen more at risk if the criminals can know with certainty that the person they are going to rob or assault isnt armed.

.. If you overlayed a plot of gun violence on that map, you could get a very uneven distribution focused very heavily on inner cities and other impoverished urban areas. In other words it is a socioeconomic problem. ...

What if we just tried to throw lots of the people from the impoverished urban areas, into jail?

Why is this always cast as all or nothing? All weapons must be permitted or a citizen will not be allowed to own a single gun?

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, it's been a LONG time since there were no restrictions on weapons that private citizens can own. Fully automatic weapons are incredibly restricted (requires Class III license, prices are inflated into the 1000s by onerous restrictions on importation or manufacture of new full autos), short barrel shotgun/rifles either heavily regulated or banned (varies by state), banned or restricted importation of many weapons/configurations legal to manufacture in the US (and the types of reasons to block importation typically have more to do with cosmetic features rather than the effectiveness of the firearm).

I can tell you the reason so see the give-nothing attitude from may gun owners and rights groups is that a slow chipping away at rights is a publicly documented strategy of anti-gun groups (the infamous "slippery slope"). That and "shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear language to some.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Why is this always cast as all or nothing? All weapons must be permitted or a citizen will not be allowed to own a single gun?

Hey! This is Modern times! You are either 100% FOR the NRA and want zero restrictions on guns or ammo, ever... Or you you are AGAINST the NRA if you support ANY measure, no matter how small, that might restrict gun production, transportation, or purchase in any way!!

...Now choose your side.

(I'm just being silly of course, many folks are in the middle grey area called 'do the best you can' concerning the implenentation of policies and etc. But like partisain politics and everything else, the battle over gun restrictions / gun rights is 2 groups of people sitting on opposite sides of the grand canyon as far as their stance is concerned...)